Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> If you read the discussion threads carefully, you'll see that the main
> issue being raised in that version of the draft (mostly by Philip and
> Gert, as I recall) was not "IA_NA should be used", but "DHCPv6 PD is not
> the only way to assign a prefix, and not a widely adopted way". -05
> addressed that issue by de-emphasizing DHCPv6 PD. As I read it, at the
> time there was pretty broad agreement at the time that IA_NA was not a
> good choice both because it is limited in terms of the number of total
> addresses that can be assigned and because it requires that the client
> send explicit requests, which has the problems listed in section 4.

I don't expect you to agree with the opinions expressed in
draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update.  To requote Gert:

> I missed that this was intended for BCP, otherwise I would have complained
> earlier.  Haven't seen anyone state that they are deploying DHCPv6-PD to
> hosts except you, so "CP" is really questionable... 
> 
> For an "Lorenzo does not like DHCPv6 IA_NA" draft, Informational sounds 
> about right.

However, there is no basis for you to assert that there was broad
agreement that IA_NA was a bad choice, and less still to codify that
into a statement which, in your opinion, creates an IETF recommendation
not to use DHCPv6 IA_NA.

Nick